No difference in midterm outcomes and complication rate between retroperitoneal and transperitoneal open aortic aneurysm repair in females

Abstract

Objectives

Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms (AAA) in females are less prevalent, have higher expansion rates and experience rupture at smaller diameters than in males. Studies have compared outcomes of the retroperitoneal (RP) and transperitoneal (TP) approach in open aortic aneurysm repair (OAR) with conflicting results. No study to date has compared the two approaches solely in females. In this study we compare midterm outcomes of the RP and TP approach in females undergoing OAR.

Methods

Single-center, retrospective review of all females undergoing OAR from 2010 to 2021. Patients undergoing elective, symptomatic and ruptured OAR were included. The cohort was stratified by surgical approach RP versus TP and midterm outcomes were compared amongst the groups. Outcomes included mortality, graft related, and non-graft related complications.

Results

A total of 244 patients (RP n = 133; TP n = 111) were identified. Follow-up period was 28 ± 30.7 months. Baseline perioperative characteristics were similar except that more people in the RP group had ejection fraction ((EF) > 50% (82% vs 68%), p = .037). Patients who underwent RP repair had longer visceral/renal ischemia time (p = .01), larger graft diameter (18 vs 16 mm; p = <0.001), were more likely to have a suprarenal clamp placed(70.5 vs 48.2; p < .001), and had decreased autotransfusion volume (611 vs 861 mL; p < .01) compared to those who underwent TP repair. Number of deaths was higher in the TP group during study follow-up period (36.4 vs 23.8; p = .035), but the difference of the time to event analysis was not significant. There was no difference in all-cause survival at 36 months between RP and TP (77.8 vs 76.8; p = .045). Overall midterm complications were 9.5% in both groups. Any graft related complication was 1.8% in TP versus 3% RP (p = .69). In a multivariable model, after adjusting for age, urgency, smoking, prior aneurysm repair, and ASA level, the hazard ratio decreases with the RP approach, however this did not reach significance (p = .052).

Conclusion

In a 12-year period of OAR in females, TP and RP results were comparable at midterm analysis. The RP approach appeared to be used more often for OAR requiring suprarenal clamping. Although the TP group had increased mortality, the difference of the time to event analysis was not significant. Midterm postoperative complications in both groups were low. This suggests that both approaches are safe in the female population and decision should be driven by anatomy and surgeon’s preference.

Keywords

Abdominal aorta aneurysm gender disparity women postoperative complication

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Schermerhorn

. Abdominal aortic aneurysms in women. J Vasc Surg 2016; 63(3): 839–844.

Sciria

Osorio

Wang

, et al. Sex-based disparities in outcomes with abdominal aortic aneurysms. Am J Cardiol 2021; 155: 135–148.

Deery

Zettervall

O’Donnell

TFX

, et al. Transabdominal open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair is associated with higher rates of late reintervention and readmission compared with the retroperitoneal approach. J Vasc Surg 2020; 71(1): 39–45.

Eisenberg

Witheford

, et al. Sex differences in outcomes following ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. JAMA Netw Open 2022; 5(5): e2211336.

Locham

Shaaban

Wang

, et al. Impact of gender on outcomes following abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. Vasc Endovascular Surg 2019; 53(8): 636–643.

Pouncey

David

Morris

, et al. Editor’s choice – systematic review and meta-analysis of sex specific differences in adverse events after open and endovascular intact abdominal aortic aneurysm repair: consistently worse outcomes for women. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2021; 62(3): 367–378.

Mei

Zhao

, et al. Retroperitoneal versus transperitoneal approach for elective open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2021; 6(6): CD010373.

Buck

Ultee

KHJ

Zettervall

, et al. Transperitoneal versus retroperitoneal approach for open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair in the targeted vascular National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. J Vasc Surg 2016; 64(3): 585–591.

Dindo

Demartines

Clavien

P-A

. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 2004; 240(2): 205–213.

10.

Cambria

Brewster

Abbott

, et al. Transperitoneal versus retroperitoneal approach for aortic reconstruction: a randomized prospective study. J Vasc Surg 1990; 11(2): 314–324.

11.

Nevelsteen

Smet

Weymans

, et al. Transabdominal or retroperitoneal approach to the aorto-iliac tract: a pulmonary function study. Eur J Vasc Surg 1988; 2(4): 229–232.

12.

Bailey

Rose

O’Donovan

, et al. Retroperitoneal compared to transperitoneal approach for open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair is associated with reduced systemic inflammation and postoperative morbidity. Aorta (Stamford) 2022; 10(5): 225–234.

13.

Glover

Lyden

Bena

, et al. Mid-term outcomes of retroperitoneal and transperitoneal exposures in open aortic aneurysm repair. Ann Vasc Surg 2020; 66: 35–43.

14.

Borkon

Zaydfudim

Carey

, et al. Retroperitoneal repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms offers postoperative benefits to male patients in the veterans affairs health system. Ann Vasc Surg 2010; 24(6): 728–732.

15.

Rastogi

Kim

Marcaccio

, et al. Retroperitoneal versus transperitoneal approach for open repair of complex abdominal aortic aneurysms. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2022; 64(1): 23–31.

16.

Lee

MH-Y

, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of sex- and gender-based differences in presentation severity and outcomes in adults undergoing major vascular surgery. J Vasc Surg 2022; 76(2): 581–594.e25.